Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LEGAL ARGUMENT I. This Court should grant a new trial because speculative testimony was erroneously admitted. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 allows the trial court to grant a new trial on all or part of the issues. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(a). A trial judge is authorized to Grant a new trial "when he or she becomes aware of a specific or substantial prejudicial error." Krolick v. Monroe ex rel. Monroe, 909 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). This includes circumstances in which prejudicial evidence is erroneously admitted and contaminates the trial. See, e.g., Marson v. Dadeland Rent-A-Car, Inc., 408 So. 2d 245, 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (granting new trial where "[t]he inadmissible testimony . . . , taken as a whole, has so contaminated this trial to the extent that we cannot permit this jury verdict to stand"); Benton v. CSX Transp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that trial court's erroneous admission of certain evidence, in combination with trial court's incorrect decision to exclude railroad employee's expert when railroad's expert opined on same issues, "may very well have caused jury to render the defense verdict for the railroad," and as such, employee was entitled to new trial). Here, the trial court's admission of speculative testimony, in combination with its decision to allow the last-minute substitution of Ms. Tucker as Respondent on the morning of trial even though Respondent did not follow the proper procedure for obtaining such substitution, contaminated the trial to the extent a new trial is warranted. II. The trial court erroneously admitted speculative evidence regarding the subject property's highest and best use. A. Speculative evidence regarding a property's highest and best use is inadmissible. The ultimate objective of condemnation proceedings is the determination of just compensation for the property owner. State Road Dep't v. Chicone, 158 So. 2d 753, 757 (Fla. 4 •